To the Editor:

Earlier this month, the Guilderland Central School District launched a website and survey to gauge the public opinion on the upcoming budget season for the district. Four options are presented:

— A. Make reductions to existing programs;

— B. Deny increases requested by program leaders;

— C. Dip into fund balance to cover additional expenses; and

— D. Consider challenging the tax levy threshold.

The options are presented along with a sub-heading to paint each option as unsavory:

— A. We have just begun to recover after five years of major cuts;

— B. Therefore fall short in meeting the needs of students/mandates;

— C. We just restored fund balances to an acceptable level per the New York State Comptroller; and

— D. Poor statewide record of success.

Woven into the website is the fashionable griping about the calculation of the state tax cap and the eight-year-old tradition of complaining about budget cuts still hanging around from Governor David A. Paterson’s era.

One could get the impression, at least from the district’s website, that, with all these external factors, it is impossible to create a budget that still well serves the students of Guilderland.

Johny Srouji — the Apple executive in charge of the electronics inside the iPhone and iPad — said once: “My rule of thumb is if it’s not gated by physics that means it’s hard but doable.”

In my opinion, it is hard to create at budget in today’s fiscal climate, but not impossible. 

First, the district needs to get out of the pre-2008 mentality where the state doled out more and more money every year, and they could levy taxes without much concern for it getting voted down. Those days are gone and the district needs to accept that.

They need to stop coming into the budget focusing on how the climate today is so much different than years past. Instead, they should see it as an opportunity to reinvent the educational program based in these new fiscal realities.

Second, the administration and board of education should think more about what the district will look like in five to 10 years. Not just in terms of enrollment or fund balances but in terms of the educational program.

Will Guilderland be known for ensuring all students are well versed in the most up-to-date technology? Or will Guilderland take pride in graduating the most culturally competent students in the area? Or perhaps will Guilderland set itself apart with its integration of special education students?

Without asking and answering these questions, we have no idea where the district is going. How can we comment on next year’s budget if we don’t know what the long-term goal is? What might seem like an easy and low impact cut this year could actually be a step backwards when we look long term.  And again, we live in a world where we can’t do everything well — there just isn’t the money for it.

So which of the four options should the district go for? All of them, and none of them, because there’s nothing saying the district can pursue only one option. Cut in some places, add some programs, dip a little into reserves if needed, and very carefully consider challenging the tax cap limit.

The operative word is “carefully.” Guilderland residents are smart; they’re tired of taxes going up more and more every year, but they also care about education.

If the board and the administration has thoroughly reflected and built a budget that serves the students well and sets the district up for success for years to come, and they honestly cannot operate without exceeding the tax cap, then they should present that to the public. If an honest, comprehensive plan is presented — again honest and comprehensive — I think that the voters will respect and support the budget with a supermajority.

In my mind, that’s the purpose of the tax cap and the override clause. If the district truly cannot operate within the cap, and they can explain the reasons to exceed the cap to the public, then the voters can choose to allow a levy above the limit.

And yes, we might not get the peanuts handed out at the end of the year in the form of a “rebate check” but no one I’ve spoken to has been blown away and impressed by these nuggets of our own money given back to us.

In the end, though, I get the feeling that Guilderland is not at the point where they can ask for a levy above the tax cap. It does not seem like all other options have been exhausted. Instead, they should explore the remaining three options (until those options are exhausted) and really think about what Guilderland Central Schools will look like in five to 10 years. I hope the residents of Guilderland stay engaged with the school district budget process and continue to provide feedback to the board of education.

Nicholas Fahrenkopf

Altamont

Editor’s note: Nicholas Fahrenkopf served on the task force that looked at alternative uses for excess classroom space, and made a bid last May for a seat on the Guilderland School Board. He is an Altamont village trustee.